The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the major turning point for the politics of the Middle East. The main message of this declaration was the support for establishing the Jewish state on the territory of Palestine, as Ehsan (2021) puts it, “rebuilding of the Jews direction for home land” (p. 118). Starting as a correspondence between Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, and Lionel Walter Rothschild, a leader of the Anglo-Jewish community, it was issued with the help of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, leaders of the Zionist movement in London. Despite not fully satisfying the Zionists, it brought hope and validity to their efforts and established the direction of the foreign policy of the UK and later the US. Despite the passing of the century, the main ideas of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 still govern the US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Early Consequences
The first signs of the possible conflict were in the interpretation of the Zionists of the declaration. The declaration stated that non-Jewish communities should not be injured or disregarded based on their religious or civil rights but did not mention specific groups. This clause was not something the Zionists were fully satisfied with at that time, intending to have full control of Palestine. However, for Britain, this vagueness was necessary to appease their British-Jewish community and, at the same time, not to escalate the situation in Palestine by disregarding the large Arab population. This ambiguity had consequences later. Britain decreased the limit and time frame of migration to Palestine until the presence of consent from the Arab people. This action from the government was met with the condemnation from the Zionists, who accused Britain of favoritism toward the Arabs. This clear difference in the intention supported by the vagueness of the declaration not only caused the issues right after its adoption but still reflects the core conflict in the region.
Modern US Foreign Policy’s Resemblance
The declaration and overall elements of the stance of Britain at that time somewhat resemble the ambiguity of the US foreign policy in the region. While enabling the Zionists to be recognized and supported in their views, the declaration, in essence, did not fully embrace their ideology. The main goal of Britain did not align with the Zionists, “British policy-makers approached Palestine as a security issue” (İsmail, 2019, p. 104). It was important for Britain to establish control of that region. Meanwhile, it also wished to ponder not only their Jewish community but possibly that of the US, “The British thought that if they conceded to this statement, they would get the support of American Jews” (Barda, 2022, p. 4). Now the foreign policy approach of the US has a similar conflict at its core. While the US is determined to support the Israeli state, it is also hesitant and avoidant of any actions that may lead to a possible escalation of the conflict. It was more or less the holistic approach to the issue regardless of the party, but it changed with the Trump administration, indicating a possible divide.
Conclusion
The influences of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 still echo in modern politics to this day. The main reason for that phenomenon is the unchanging interests and intentions of the actors involved, as seen in the US example. However, the new direction of the Trump administration, despite being quickly reversed by the new president Biden, offered a further progression of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It is unclear how the US foreign policy will proceed, but the possible divide along the party line in terms of the action in the region is potential.
References
Barda, K. (2022). The First Zionist Lobbyists in the US: Louis Brandeis’ and Stephen Waise’s Roles in the Balfour Declaration.
Ehsan, N. (2021). Balfour Declaration and Contemporary Politics of Middle East. Middle East Review, 3(2663-0680), pp. 115-138.
İsmail, E. D. İ. Z. (2019). A neoclassical realist explanation of the Balfour Declaration and the origins of the British foreign policy in Palestine. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 34(1), 99-122.